Value check instruction for processing vectors

ABSTRACT

The described embodiments include a processor that executes a ValueCheck instruction. In the described embodiments, the processor receives an input vector and a predicate vector, each including N elements. The processor then executes a ValueCheck instruction, which causes the processor to generate a result vector. When generating the result vector, for each element in a set of elements in the input vector for which a corresponding element of the predicate vector is active, the processor determines if at least one of the elements in the set of elements precedes the element in the input vector and contains a different value than the element in the input vector. If so, the processor writes an identifier for a closest preceding active element that contains the different value into a corresponding element of a result vector. Otherwise, the processor writes a zero in the corresponding element of the result vector.

RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation in part of, and hereby claims priority under 35 U.S.C. §120 to, pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/541,546, entitled “Running-Shift Instructions for Processing Vectors,” by inventors Jeffry E. Gonion and Keith E. Diefendorff, filed 14 Aug. 2009, attorney docket no. APL-P7038US9. This application further claims priority under 35 U.S.C. §120 to U.S. provisional patent application No. 61/089,251, attorney docket no. APL-P7038PRV1, entitled “Macroscalar Processor Architecture,” by inventor Jeffry E. Gonion, filed 15 Aug. 2008, to which the parent application Ser. No. 12/541,546 claims priority. These applications are each herein incorporated by reference.

This application is related to: (1) pending application Ser. No. 12/419,629, attorney docket no. APL-P7038US1, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Executing Program Code,” by inventors Jeffry E. Gonion and Keith E. Diefendorff, filed on 7 Apr. 2009; (2) pending application Ser. No. 12/419,644, attorney docket no. APL-P7038US2, entitled “Break, Pre-Break, and Remaining Instructions for Processing Vectors,” by inventors Jeffry E. Gonion and Keith E. Diefendorff, filed on 7 Apr. 2009; (3) pending application Ser. No. 12/419,661, attorney docket no. APL-P7038US3, entitled “Check-Hazard Instructions for Processing Vectors,” by inventors Jeffry E. Gonion and Keith E. Diefendorff, filed on 7 Apr. 2009; (4) pending application Ser. No. 12/495,656, attorney docket no. APL-P7038US4, entitled “Copy-Propagate, Propagate-Post, and Propagate-Prior Instructions For Processing Vectors,” by inventors Jeffry E. Gonion and Keith E. Diefendorff, filed on 30 Jun. 2009; (5) pending application Ser. No. 12/495,643, attorney docket no. APL-P7038US5, entitled “Shift-In-Right Instructions for Processing Vectors,” by inventors Jeffry E. Gonion and Keith E. Diefendorff, filed on 30 Jun. 2009; (6) pending application Ser. No. 12/495,631, attorney docket no. APL-P7038US6, entitled “Increment-Propagate and Decrement-Propagate Instructions for Processing Vectors,” by inventors Jeffry E. Gonion and Keith E. Diefendorff, filed on 30 Jun. 2009; (7) pending application Ser. No. 12/541,505, attorney docket no. APL-P7038US7, entitled “Running-Sum Instructions for Processing Vectors,” by inventors Jeffry E. Gonion and Keith E. Diefendorff, filed on 14 Aug. 2009; and (8) pending application Ser. No. 12/541,526, attorney docket no. APL-P7038US8, entitled “Running-AND, Running-OR, Running-XOR, and Running-Multiply Instructions for Processing Vectors” by inventors Jeffry E. Gonion and Keith E. Diefendorff, filed on 14 Aug. 2009.

This application is also related to: (1) pending application Ser. No. 12/873,043, attorney docked no. APL-P7038USX1, entitled “Running-Min and Running-Max Instructions for Processing Vectors,” by inventors Jeffry E. Gonion and Keith E. Diefendorff, filed 31 Aug. 2010; (2) pending application Ser. No. 12/873,063, attorney docked no. APL-P7038USX2, entitled “Non-Faulting and First-Faulting Instructions for Processing Vectors,” by inventors Jeffry E. Gonion and Keith E. Diefendorff, filed 31 Aug. 2010; (3) pending application Ser. No. 12/873,074, attorney docket no. APL-P7038USX3, entitled “Vector Test Instruction for Processing Vectors” by inventors Jeffry E. Gonion and Keith E. Diefendorff, filed 31 Aug. 2010; (4) pending application Ser. No. 12/907,471, attorney docket no. APL-P7038USX4, entitled “Select First and Select Last Instructions for Processing Vectors,” by inventors Jeffry E. Gonion and Keith E. Diefendorff, filed 19 Oct. 2010; (5) pending application Ser. No. 12/907,490, attorney docket no. APL-P7038USX5, entitled “Actual Instruction and Actual-Fault Instructions for Processing Vectors,” by inventors Jeffry E. Gonion and Keith E. Diefendorff, filed 19 Oct. 2010; (6) pending application Ser. No. 12/977,333, attorney docket no. APL-P7038USX6, entitled “Remaining Instruction for Processing Vectors,” by inventors Jeffry E. Gonion and Keith E. Diefendorff, filed 23 Dec. 2010; (7) pending application Ser. No. 13/006,243, attorney docket no. APL-P7038USX7, entitled “Remaining Instruction for Processing Vectors,” by inventors Jeffry E. Gonion and Keith E. Diefendorff, filed 13 Jan. 2011; (8) pending application Ser. No. 13/189,140, attorney docket no. APL-P7038USX8, entitled “GetFirst and AssignLast Instructions for Processing Vectors,” by inventors Jeffry E. Gonion and Keith E. Diefendorff, filed 22 Jul. 2011; (9) pending application Ser. No. 13/291,931, attorney docket no. APL-P7038USX10, entitled “Vector Index Instruction for Processing Vectors,” by inventor Jeffry E. Gonion and Keith E. Diefendorff, filed 8 Nov. 2011; (10) pending application Ser. No. 13/343,619, attorney docket no. APL-P7038USX11, entitled “Predicate Count and Segment Count Instructions for Processing Vectors” by inventor Jeffry E. Gonion, filed on 4 Jan. 2012; (11) pending application Ser. No. 13/414,606, attorney docket no. APL-P7038USX12, entitled “Predicting Branches for Vector Partitioning Loops when Processing Vector Instructions” by inventor Jeffry E. Gonion, filed on 7 Mar. 2012; (12) pending application Ser. No. 13/456,371, attorney docket no. APL-P7038USX13, entitled “Running Unary Operation Instructions for Processing Vectors” by inventor Jeffry E. Gonion, filed on 26 Apr. 2012; (13) pending application Ser. No. ______, attorney docket no. APL-P7038USX14, entitled “Running Multiply Accumulate Instruction for Processing Vectors” by inventor Jeffry E. Gonion, filed on ______; (14) pending application Ser. No. ______, attorney docket no. APL-P7038USX15, entitled “Confirm Instruction for Processing Vectors” by inventor Jeffry E. Gonion, filed on ______; and (15) pending application Ser. No. ______, attorney docket no. APL-P7038USX16, entitled “Conditional Extract Instruction for Processing Vectors” by inventor Jeffry E. Gonion, filed on ______.

This application is also related to: (1) pending application Ser. No. 12/237,212, attorney docket no. APL-P6031US1, entitled “Conditional Data-Dependency Resolution in Vector Processors,” by inventors Jeffry E. Gonion and Keith E. Diefendorff, filed 24 Sep. 2008; (2) pending application Ser. No. 12/237,196, attorney docket no. APL-P6031US2, entitled “Generating Stop Indicators Based on Conditional Data Dependency in Vector Processors,” by inventors Jeffry E. Gonion and Keith E. Diefendorff, filed 24 Sep. 2008; (3) pending application Ser. No. 12/237,190, attorney docket no. APL-P6031US3, entitled “Generating Predicate Values Based on Conditional Data Dependency in Vector Processors,” by inventors Jeffry E. Gonion and Keith E. Diefendorff, filed 24 Sep. 2008; (4) application Ser. No. 11/803,576, attorney docket no. APL-P4982US1, entitled “Memory-Hazard Detection and Avoidance Instructions for Vector Processing,” by inventors Jeffry E. Gonion and Keith E. Diefendorff, filed 14 May 2007, which has been issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,019,976; and (5) pending application Ser. No. 13/224,170, attorney docket no. APL-P4982USC1, entitled “Memory-Hazard Detection and Avoidance Instructions for Vector Processing,” by inventors Jeffry E. Gonion and Keith E. Diefendorff, filed 14 May 2007.

BACKGROUND

1. Field

The described embodiments relate to techniques for improving the performance of computer systems. More specifically, the described embodiments relate to a ValueCheck instruction for processing vectors.

2. Related Art

Recent advances in processor design have led to the development of a number of different processor architectures. For example, processor designers have created superscalar processors that exploit instruction-level parallelism (ILP), multi-core processors that exploit thread-level parallelism (TLP), and vector processors that exploit data-level parallelism (DLP). Each of these processor architectures has unique advantages and disadvantages which have either encouraged or hampered the widespread adoption of the architecture. For example, because ILP processors can often operate on existing program code that has undergone only minor modifications, these processors have achieved widespread adoption. However, TLP and DLP processors typically require applications to be manually re-coded to gain the benefit of the parallelism that they offer, a process that requires extensive effort. Consequently, TLP and DLP processors have not gained widespread adoption for general-purpose applications.

One significant issue affecting the adoption of DLP processors is the vectorization of loops in program code. In a typical program, a large portion of execution time is spent in loops. Unfortunately, many of these loops have characteristics that render them unvectorizable in existing DLP processors. Thus, the performance benefits gained from attempting to vectorize program code can be limited.

One significant obstacle to vectorizing loops in program code in existing systems is dependencies between iterations of the loop. For example, loop-carried data dependencies and memory-address aliasing are two such dependencies. These dependencies can be identified by a compiler during the compiler's static analysis of program code, but they cannot be completely resolved until runtime data is available. Thus, because the compiler cannot conclusively determine that runtime dependencies will not be encountered, the compiler cannot vectorize the loop. Hence, because existing systems require that the compiler determine the extent of available parallelism during compilation, relatively little code can be vectorized.

SUMMARY

The described embodiments include a processor that executes a ValueCheck instruction. In the described embodiments, the processor receives an input vector and a predicate vector, each including N elements. The processor then executes a ValueCheck instruction, which causes the processor to generate a result vector. When generating the result vector, for each element in a set of elements in the input vector for which a corresponding element of the predicate vector is active, the processor determines if at least one of the elements in the set of elements precedes the element in the input vector and contains a different value than the element in the input vector. If so, the processor writes an identifier for a closest preceding active element that contains the different value into a corresponding element of a result vector. Otherwise, the processor writes a zero in the corresponding element of the result vector.

In some embodiments, when determining if at least one of the elements in the set of elements precedes the element in the input vector and contains a different value than the element in the input vector, the processor makes the determination for only a closest preceding element from the set of elements.

In some embodiments, the elements of the input vector contain pointers to locations in memory, and when an element that precedes the element in the input vector contains a different value than the element in the input vector, the corresponding pointers indicate different locations in memory.

In some embodiments, each location in the memory is a location where program code for a corresponding function begins.

In some embodiments, the identifier comprises a numeric value representative of the closest preceding element that contains the different value.

In some embodiments, for each element of the result vector for which a corresponding element of the predicate vector is not active, the processor sets the element in the result vector equal to zero.

In some embodiments, an element of the predicate vector is active when the element contains a predetermined value.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE FIGURES

FIG. 1 presents a block diagram of a computer system in accordance with the described embodiments.

FIG. 2 presents an expanded view of a processor in accordance with the described embodiments.

FIG. 3 presents an expanded view of a vector execution unit in accordance with the described embodiments.

FIG. 4 presents a flowchart illustrating a process for executing program code in accordance with the described embodiments.

FIG. 5 presents a flowchart illustrating a process for executing a ValueCheck instruction in accordance with the described embodiments.

In the figures, like reference numerals refer to the same figure elements.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

The following description is presented to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the described embodiments, and is provided in the context of a particular application and its requirements. Various modifications to the described embodiments will be readily apparent to those skilled in the art, and the general principles defined herein may be applied to other embodiments and applications without departing from the spirit and scope of the described embodiments. Thus, the described embodiments are not limited to the embodiments shown, but are to be accorded the widest scope consistent with the principles and features disclosed herein.

The data structures and code described in this detailed description are typically stored on a computer-readable storage medium, which may be any device or medium that can store code and/or data for use by an electronic device with computing capabilities. For example, the computer-readable storage medium can include volatile memory or non-volatile memory, such as flash memory, random access memory (RAM, SRAM, DRAM, RDRAM, DDR/DDR2/DDR3 SDRAM, etc.), magnetic or optical storage mediums (e.g., disk drives, magnetic tape, CDs, DVDs), and/or other mediums capable of storing data structures or code. Note that in the described embodiments, the computer-readable storage medium does not include non-statutory computer-readable storage mediums such as transitory signals.

The methods and processes described in this detailed description can be included in one or more hardware modules. For example, the hardware modules can include, but are not limited to, processors, application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) chips, field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), and other programmable-logic devices. When the hardware modules are activated, the hardware modules perform the methods and processes included within the hardware modules. In some embodiments, the hardware modules include one or more general-purpose circuits that are configured by executing instructions (program code, firmware, etc.) to perform the methods and processes.

The methods and processes described in the detailed description section can be embodied as code and/or data that can be stored in a computer-readable storage medium as described above. When computer system (e.g., a processor in the computer system) reads and executes the code and/or data stored on the computer-readable storage medium, the computer system performs the methods and processes embodied as data structures and code and stored within the computer-readable storage medium.

In the following description, we refer to “some embodiments.” Note that “some embodiments” describes a subset of all of the possible embodiments, but does not necessarily always specify the same subset of the embodiments.

Macroscalar Architecture

The embodiments described herein are based in part on the Macroscalar Architecture that is described in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/541,546, entitled “Running-Shift Instructions for Processing Vectors,” by inventors Jeffry E. Gonion and Keith E. Diefendorff, filed 14 Aug. 2009, attorney docket no. APL-P7038US9 (hereinafter, “the '546 application”), the contents of which are (as described above) incorporated by reference.

As recited in the '546 application, the described embodiments provide an instruction set and supporting hardware that allow compilers to generate program code for loops without completely determining parallelism at compile-time, and without discarding useful static analysis information. Specifically, these embodiments provide a set of instructions that do not mandate parallelism for loops but instead enable parallelism to be exploited at runtime if dynamic conditions permit. These embodiments thus include instructions that enable code generated by the compiler to dynamically switch between non-parallel (scalar) and parallel (vector) execution for loop iterations depending on conditions at runtime by switching the amount of parallelism used.

These embodiments provide instructions that enable an undetermined amount of vector parallelism for loop iterations but do not require that the parallelism be used at runtime. More specifically, these embodiments include a set of vector-length agnostic instructions whose effective vector length can vary depending on runtime conditions. Thus, if runtime dependencies demand non-parallel execution of the code, then execution occurs with an effective vector length of one element. Likewise, if runtime conditions permit parallel execution, the same code executes in a vector-parallel manner to whatever degree is allowed by runtime dependencies (and the vector length of the underlying hardware). For example, if two out of eight elements of the vector can safely execute in parallel, the described embodiments execute the two elements in parallel. In these embodiments, expressing program code in a vector-length agnostic format enables a broad range of vectorization opportunities that are not present in existing systems.

In the described embodiments, during compilation, a compiler first analyzes the loop structure of a given loop in program code and performs static dependency analysis. The compiler then generates program code that retains static analysis information and instructs processor 102 how to resolve runtime dependencies and process the program code with the maximum amount of parallelism possible. More specifically, the compiler provides vector instructions for performing corresponding sets of loop iterations in parallel, and provides vector-control instructions for dynamically limiting the execution of the vector instructions to prevent data dependencies between the iterations of the loop from causing an error (which can be called “vector partitioning”). This approach defers the determination of parallelism to runtime, where the information on runtime dependencies is available, thereby allowing the software and processor to adapt parallelism to dynamically changing conditions (i.e., based on data that is not available at compile-time).

Vectorized program code can comprise vector-control instructions and vector instructions forming a loop in the vectorized program code that performs vector operations based on a corresponding loop in program code. The vector control instructions can determine iterations of the loop in program code that are safe to execute in parallel (because, e.g., no runtime data dependencies have occurred), and the vector instructions can be executed using predication and/or other dynamic controls to limit the elements of the vector instruction that are processed in parallel to the determined-safe iterations. (Recall that, in the described embodiments, each element of a vector instruction can perform an operation (or operations) for corresponding iterations of a loop in the program code.)

Terminology

Throughout the description, we use the following terminology. These terms may be generally known in the art, but are described below to clarify the subsequent descriptions.

The term “active” or “active element,” as used in this description to refer to one or more elements of a vector, indicates elements that are operated on during a given operation. Generally, the described embodiments enable a vector execution unit to selectively perform operations on one or more available elements in a given vector in parallel. For example, an operation can be performed on only the first two of eight elements of the vector in parallel. In this case, the first two elements are “active elements,” while the remaining six elements are “inactive elements.” In the described embodiments, one or more other vectors can be used to determine which elements in a given operand vector are active (i.e., are to be operated on). For example, a “predicate vector” and/or “control vector” can include “active” elements that are used to determine which elements in the operand vector to perform operations on. In some embodiments, elements that contain data of a predetermined type are active elements (e.g., true, false, non-zero, zero, uppercase/lowercase characters, even/odd/prime numbers, vowels, whole numbers, etc.).

The terms “true” and “false” are used in this description to refer to data values (e.g., a data value contained in an element in a vector). Generally, in computer systems true and false are often represented by 1 and 0, respectively. In practice, a given embodiment could use any value to represent true and false, such as the number 55, or the letter “T.”

In the following examples, “corresponding elements” may be described. Generally, corresponding elements are elements at a same element position in two or more different vectors. For example, when a value is copied from an element in an input vector into a “corresponding element” of a result vector, the value is copied from an nth element in the input vector into an nth element in the result vector.

In the following examples, “relevant” elements may be described. In the described embodiments, a relevant element is an element in a given vector for which the corresponding element in one or more other vectors (e.g., a control vector and/or predicate vector) is/are active. For example, given an input control vector for which only a fourth element is active, a second input vector only has one relevant element—the fourth element.

In this description, for clarity, operations performed for “vector instructions and/or operations” may be described generally as operations performed for “vector instructions,” however, in the described embodiments “vector operations” can be handled in similar ways.

Notation

In describing the embodiments in the instant application, we use the following formats for variables, which are vector quantities unless otherwise noted:

p5=a<b;

-   -   Elements of vector p5 are set to 0 or 1 depending on the result         of the comparison operation a<b. Note that vector p5 can be a         predicate vector that can be used to control the number of         elements of one or more vector instructions that execute in         parallel.

˜p5; a=b+c;

-   -   Only elements in vector a designated by active (i.e., non-zero)         elements in the predicate vector p5 receive the result of b+c.         The remaining elements of a are unchanged. This operation is         called “predication,” and is denoted using the tilde (“˜”)         before the predicate vector.

!p5; a=b+c;

-   -   Only elements in vector a designated by active (e.g., non-zero)         elements in the predicate vector p5 receive the result of b+c.         The remaining elements of a are set to zero. This operation is         called “zeroing,” and is denoted using the exclamation point         (“!”) before the predicate vector.

if (FIRST( )) goto ...; Also LAST( ), ANY( ), ALL( ), CARRY( ), ABOVE( ), or NONE( ), (where ANY( ) == !NONE( ))

These instructions test the processor status flags and branch accordingly.

-   x+=VECLEN;     -   VECLEN is a value that communicates the number of elements per         vector. The value is determined at runtime by the processor 102         (see FIG. 1), rather than being determined by the         compiler/assembler. -   // Comment     -   In a similar way to many common programming languages, the         examples presented below use the double forward slash to         indicate comments. These comments can provide information         regarding the values contained in the indicated vector or         explanation of operations being performed in a corresponding         example.

In these examples, other C++-formatted operators retain their conventional meanings, but are applied across the vector on an element-by-element basis. Where function calls are employed, they imply a single instruction that places any value returned into a destination register. For simplicity in understanding, all vectors discussed herein are vectors of integers, but alternative embodiments support other data formats.

Instruction Definitions

The described embodiments include a ValueCheck instruction. The ValueCheck instruction takes an input vector and a predicate vector as inputs, each of the vectors including N elements. When executed, the ValueCheck instruction causes processor 102 to determine, for each active element in the input vector, if at least one active element in the input vector that precedes the element in the input vector contains a different value than the element. In the described embodiments, an element that “precedes” the element in the input vector is a lower-numbered element of the input vector, e.g., an element to the left of the element if the elements of the vector are numbered from 0-N from left to right, and an active element is an element of the input vector for which a corresponding element of the predicate vector is active.

When a given active element in the input vector is preceded by at least one active element that contains a different value, processor 102 records an identifier for the position of the closest preceding active element containing the different value into a corresponding position in the result vector. Otherwise, processor 102 writes a zero to the element of the result vector.

Although certain arrangements of instructions are used in describing the ValueCheck instruction, a person of skill in the art will recognize that these concepts may be implemented using different arrangements or types of instructions without departing from the spirit of the described embodiments. Additionally, the ValueCheck instruction is described using a signed-integer data type. However, in alternative embodiments, other data types or formats are used. Moreover, although Macroscalar instructions may take vector, scalar, or immediate arguments in practice, vector arguments are described herein.

For the purposes of explanation, the vector data type is defined as a C++ class containing an array v[ ] of elements that comprise the vector. Within these descriptions, the variable VECLEN indicates the size of the vector. In some embodiments, VECLEN is constant.

Note that the format of the following instruction definitions is a statement of the instruction type followed by a description of the instruction that can include example code as well as one or more usage examples.

ValueCheck

The ValueCheck instruction compares active elements from an input vector to preceding active elements from the input vector to determine when a value in a given active element differs from a value in one or more preceding active elements. When a difference is found, the ValueCheck instruction records an indicator of the closest preceding active element where the value differs into a corresponding element of a result vector. If no preceding active element contains a different value, the ValueCheck instruction records a zero into a corresponding element of a result vector.

vector ValueCheck(vector a) {    vector r;    int x, y, lastDiff, value;    for (x=0; x<VECLEN; ++x)    {       r.v[x] = 0;       if (gp.v[x])          break;    }    lastDiff = 0;    value = a.v[x];    ++x;    for (y=x; y<VECLEN; ++y)    {       if (gp.v[y])       {          if (a.v[y] == value)             r.v[y] = lastDiff;          else          {             lastDiff = x;             r.v[y] = lastDiff;          }          value = a.v[y];          x = y;       }       else          r.v[y] = 0;    }    return(r); } Examples (elements are numbered from 1-8 in this example):

!p0; a = ValueCheck(a); On Entry: p0 = { 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 } a = { A A B B B A A B } On Exit: r = { 0 0 2 0 2 5 5 0 }

Computer System

FIG. 1 presents a block diagram of a computer system 100 in accordance with the described embodiments. Computer system 100 includes processor 102, L2 cache 106, memory 108, and mass-storage device 110. Processor 102 includes L1 cache 104.

Processor 102 can be a general-purpose processor that performs computational operations. For example, processor 102 can be a central processing unit (CPU) such as a microprocessor, a controller, an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), or a field-programmable gate array (FPGA). In the described embodiments, processor 102 has one or more mechanisms for vector processing (i.e., vector execution units).

Mass-storage device 110, memory 108, L2 cache 106, and L1 cache 104 are computer-readable storage devices that collectively form a memory hierarchy that stores data and instructions for processor 102. Generally, mass-storage device 110 is a high-capacity, non-volatile memory, such as a disk drive or a large flash memory, with a large access time, while L1 cache 104, L2 cache 106, and memory 108 are smaller, faster semiconductor memories that store copies of frequently used data. Memory 108 is typically a dynamic random access memory (DRAM) structure that is larger than L1 cache 104 and L2 cache 106, whereas L1 cache 104 and L2 cache 106 are typically comprised of smaller static random access memories (SRAM). In some embodiments, L2 cache 106, memory 108, and mass-storage device 110 are shared between one or more processors in computer system 100. Such memory structures are well-known in the art and are therefore not described in more detail.

In some embodiments, the devices in the memory hierarchy (i.e., L1 cache 104, etc.) can access (i.e., read and/or write) multiple cache lines per cycle. These embodiments enable more effective processing of memory accesses that occur based on a vector of pointers or array indices to non-contiguous memory addresses. In addition, in some embodiments, the caches in the memory hierarchy are divided into a number of separate banks, each of which can be accessed in parallel. Banks within caches and parallel accesses of the banks are known in the art and hence are not described in more detail.

Computer system 100 can be incorporated into many different types of electronic devices. For example, computer system 100 can be part of a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a tablet computer, a server, a media player, an appliance, a cellular phone, a piece of testing equipment, a network appliance, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a hybrid device (i.e., a “smart phone”), or another electronic device.

Although we use specific components to describe computer system 100, in alternative embodiments, different components may be present in computer system 100. For example, computer system 100 may not include some of the memory hierarchy (e.g., memory 108 and/or mass-storage device 110). Alternatively, computer system 100 may include video cards, video-capture devices, user-interface devices, network cards, optical drives, and/or other peripheral devices that are coupled to processor 102 using a bus, a network, or another suitable communication channel. Computer system 100 may also include one or more additional processors, wherein the processors share some or all of L2 cache 106, memory 108, and mass-storage device 110.

Processor

FIG. 2 presents an expanded view of processor 102 in accordance with the described embodiments. As shown in FIG. 2, processor 102 includes L1 cache 104, fetch unit 200, decode unit 202, dispatch unit 204, branch execution unit 206, integer execution unit 208, vector execution unit 210, floating-point execution unit 212 (branch execution unit 206, integer execution unit 208, vector execution unit 210, and floating-point execution unit 212 as a group are interchangeably referred to as “the execution units”).

Fetch unit 200 fetches instructions from the memory hierarchy in computer system 100 and forwards the fetched instructions to be decoded in decode unit 202 for eventual execution in the execution units. Generally, fetch unit 200 attempts to fetch instructions from the closest portion of the memory hierarchy first, and if the instruction is not found at that level of the memory hierarchy, proceeds to the next level in the memory hierarchy until the instruction is found. For example, in some embodiments, fetch unit can request instructions from L1 cache 104 (which can comprise a single physical cache for instructions and data, or can comprise physically separate instruction and data caches). Aside from the operations herein described, the operations of fetch units are generally known in the art and hence are not described in more detail.

Decode unit 202 decodes the instructions and assembles executable instructions to be sent to the execution units, and dispatch unit 204 receives decoded instructions from decode unit 202 and dispatches the decoded instructions to the appropriate execution unit. For example, dispatch unit 204 can dispatch branch instructions to branch execution unit 206, integer instructions to integer execution unit 208, etc.

Each of execution units 206-212 is used for performing computational operations, such as logical operations, mathematical operations, or bitwise operations for an associated type of operand or operation. More specifically, integer execution unit 208 is used for performing computational operations that involve integer operands, floating-point execution unit 212 is used for performing computational operations that involve floating-point operands, vector execution unit 210 is used for performing computational operations that involve vector operands, and branch execution unit 206 is used for performing operations for resolving branches. Integer execution units, branch execution units, and floating-point execution units are generally known in the art and are not described in detail.

In the described embodiments, vector execution unit 210 is a single-instruction-multiple-data (SIMD) execution unit that performs operations in parallel on some or all of the data elements that are included in vectors of operands. FIG. 3 presents an expanded view of vector execution unit 210 in accordance with the described embodiments. As is shown in FIG. 3, vector execution unit 210 includes a vector register file 300 and an execution unit 302. Vector register file 300 includes a set of vector registers that can hold operand vectors and result vectors for execution unit 302. In some embodiments, there are 32 vector registers in the vector register file, and each register includes 128 bits. In alternative embodiments, there are different numbers of vector registers and/or different numbers of bits per register.

Vector execution unit 302 retrieves operands from registers in vector register file 300 and executes vector instructions that cause execution unit 302 to perform operations in parallel on some or all of the data elements (or, simply, “elements”) in the operand vector. For example, execution unit 302 can perform logical operations, mathematical operations, or bitwise operations on the elements in the vector. Execution unit 302 can perform one vector operation per cycle (although the “cycle” may include more than one cycle of a clock used to trigger, synchronize, and/or control execution unit 302's computational operations).

In the described embodiments, execution unit 302 supports vectors that hold N data elements (e.g., bytes, words, doublewords, etc.). In these embodiments, execution unit 302 can perform operations on N or fewer of the data elements in an operand vector in parallel. For example, assuming an embodiment where the vector is 256 bits in length (i.e., 32 bytes), the data elements being operated on are four-byte words, and the operation is adding a value to the data elements, these embodiments can add the value to any number of the eight words in the vector.

In the described embodiments, execution unit 302 includes at least one control signal that enables the dynamic limitation of the data elements in an operand vector on which execution unit 302 operates. Specifically, depending on the state of the control signal, execution unit 302 may or may not operate on all the data elements in the vector. For example, assuming an embodiment where the vector is 512 bits in length and the data elements being operated on are four-byte words, the control signal can be asserted to prevent operations from being performed on some or all of 16 data words in the operand vector. Note that “dynamically” limiting the data elements in the operand vector upon which operations are performed can involve asserting the control signal separately for each cycle at runtime.

In some embodiments, based on the values contained in a vector of predicates or one or more scalar predicates, execution unit 302 applies vector operations to selected vector data elements only. In some embodiments, the remaining data elements in a result vector remain unaffected (which we call “predication”) or are forced to zero (which we call “zeroing”). In some of these embodiments, the clocks for the data element processing subsystems (“lanes”) that are unused due to predication or zeroing in execution unit 302 can be gated, thereby reducing dynamic power consumption in execution unit 302.

The described embodiments are vector-length agnostic. Thus, a compiler or programmer need not have explicit knowledge of the vector length supported by the underlying hardware (e.g., vector execution unit 302). In these embodiments, a compiler generates or a programmer writes program code that need not rely on (or use) a specific vector length (some embodiments are forbidden from even specifying a specific vector size in program code). Thus, the compiled code in these embodiments (i.e., binary code) runs on other embodiments with differing vector lengths, while potentially realizing performance gains from processors that support longer vectors. Consequently, as process technology allows longer vectors, execution of legacy binary code simply speeds up without any effort by software developers.

In some embodiments, vector lengths need not be powers of two. Specifically, vectors of 3, 7, or another number of data elements can be used in the same way as vectors with power-of-two numbers of data elements.

In the described embodiments, each data element in the vector can contain an address that is used by execution unit 302 for performing a set of memory accesses in parallel. In these embodiments, if one or more elements of the vector contain invalid memory addresses, invalid memory-read operations can occur. In these embodiments, invalid memory-read operations that would otherwise result in program termination instead cause any elements with valid addresses to be read and elements with invalid elements to be flagged, allowing program execution to continue in the face of speculative, and in hindsight illegal, read operations.

In some embodiments, processor 102 (and hence execution unit 302) is able to operate on and use vectors of pointers. In these embodiments, the number of data elements per vector is the same as the number of pointers per vector, regardless of the size of the data type. Instructions that operate on memory may have variants that indicate the size of the memory access, but elements in processor registers should be the same as the pointer size. In these embodiments, processors that support both 32-bit and 64-bit addressing modes may choose to allow twice as many elements per vector in 32-bit mode, thereby achieving greater throughput. This implies a distinct throughput advantage to 32-bit addressing, assuming the same width data path. Implementation-specific techniques can be used to relax the requirement. For example, double-precision floating-point numbers can be supported in 32-bit mode through register pairing or some other specialized mechanism.

Although we describe processor 102 as including a particular set of units, in alternative embodiments, processor 102 can include different numbers or types of units. In addition, although vector execution unit 210 is describe using particular mechanisms, alternative embodiments may include different mechanisms. Generally, vector execution unit 210 (and, more broadly, processor 102) comprises sufficient mechanisms to perform vector operations, including the operations herein described.

Executing a ValueCheck Instruction

FIG. 4 presents a flowchart illustrating a process for executing program code in accordance with the described embodiments. As can be seen in FIG. 4, when executing program code, processor 102 receives an input vector and a predicate vector, where each of the vectors includes N elements (step 400). Next, using the received input vector and predicate vector, processor 102 executes a ValueCheck instruction (step 402).

The predicate vector received in operation 400 can be the output of an earlier vector control instruction, and can indicate active elements of the input vector as described below with respect to step 502.

In the following examples, “corresponding elements” of the predicate vector are described with respect to elements of the input vector. In the described embodiments, a corresponding element for the predicate vector for an element in the input vector is an nth element in the predicate vector for an nth element of the input vector.

FIG. 5 presents a flowchart illustrating a process for executing a ValueCheck instruction in accordance with the described embodiments. In these embodiments, the operations shown in FIG. 5 are performed as part of step 402 in FIG. 4. Thus, for the purposes of describing the operations shown in FIG. 5, it is assumed that the input vector and the predicate vector have been received, as shown in step 400 in FIG. 4.

When executing the ValueCheck instruction, for each element of the input vector in parallel (step 500), processor 102 determines if the element of the predicate vector is active (step 502). If not, processor 102 sets the corresponding element of the result vector to zero (step 504). For example, assuming that the input vector iv1 and the predicate vector pred contain the values shown, the result vector res could be generated as follows:

iv1 = { A A B B B A A B } pred = { 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 } res = { 0 X X 0 X X X 0 } For clarity, other elements in res are marked with an X.

If the element of the predicate vector is active (step 502), processor 102 determines if at least one preceding active element of the input vector contains a different value than the element in the input vector (step 506). If not, i.e., if all preceding active elements in the input vector contain the same value or if no active elements precede the element in the input vector, processor 102 sets a corresponding element of the result vector equal to zero (step 504). For example, assuming that the input vector iv1 and the predicate vector pred contain the values shown, the result vector res could be generated as follows:

iv1 = { A A B B B A A B } pred = { 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 } res = { X 0 X X X X X X } For clarity, other elements in res are marked with an X.

Otherwise, if at least one of the preceding active elements in the input vector contains a different value than the element in the input vector (step 506), processor 102 records an identifier (e.g., an element number) of the closest preceding active element that contains a different value into the corresponding element of the result vector (step 508). For example, assuming that the input vector iv1 and the predicate vector pred contain the values shown, the result vector res could be generated as follows:

iv1 = { A A B B B A A B } pred = { 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 } res = { X X 2 X 2 5 5 X } As can be seen in this example, changes in element values (from A to B or from B to A) occur at the third and sixth elements of input vector iv1. Identifiers for the second element (which is the identifier “2” because it is assumed that vector elements are numbered from 1-8 from left to right in this example) are therefore recorded in the third and fifth elements of the result vector res, and identifiers for the fifth element (which is the identifier “5” because it is assumed that vector elements are numbered from 1-8 from left to right in this example) are therefore recorded in the sixth and seventh elements of the result vector res.

In some embodiments, when determining if at least one of the preceding active elements in the input vector contains a different value than the element in the input vector, processor 102 is configured to make the determination for only a closest preceding element in the input vector. This means that, for a given element, only a single preceding element is checked. In some embodiments, the closest preceding element is the closest preceding active element.

Recall that, in the described embodiments, each element of an input vector can be used to hold an operator for an operation in a corresponding loop in program code that has been vectorized. In some embodiments, the operation is a call to a function, and the elements of the input vector contain pointers to locations in memory at which the function is located. In some of these embodiments, a different function call may be made for each iteration of the loop, and hence the pointers in each element of the input vector may be different. When such an input vector is used as the input to a ValueCheck instruction, processor 102 generates a result vector that includes a record of element locations where the pointers change between elements. For example, if an nth element of the input vector contains a pointer X, and an n+1st element of the input vector contains a pointer Y, the result vector will include a record that indicates that the pointer changed at the n^(th) element (as described in detail below). In some embodiments, this record can be used to help determine which elements of the input vector can be operated on in parallel, i.e., can be used to determine contiguous sets of one or more elements for which corresponding functions can be called in parallel because the function pointers match.

The foregoing descriptions have been presented only for purposes of illustration and description. They are not intended to be exhaustive or to limit the described embodiments to the forms disclosed. Accordingly, many modifications and variations will be apparent to practitioners skilled in the art. Additionally, the above disclosure is not intended to limit the described embodiments. The scope of these embodiments is defined by the appended claims. 

1. A method for generating a result vector, comprising: receiving an input vector and a predicate vector, each including N elements; and generating the result vector, wherein generating the result vector comprises, for each element in a set of elements in the input vector for which a corresponding element of the predicate vector is active, determining if at least one of the elements in the set of elements precedes the element in the input vector and contains a different value than the element in the input vector; and if so, writing an identifier for a closest preceding active element that contains the different value into a corresponding element of a result vector; and if not, writing a zero in the corresponding element of the result vector.
 2. The method of claim 1, wherein determining if at least one of the elements in the set of elements precedes the element in the input vector and contains a different value than the element in the input vector comprises making the determination for only a closest preceding element from the set of elements.
 3. The method of claim 1, wherein the elements of the input vector contain pointers to locations in memory, and when an element that precedes the element in the input vector contains a different value than the element in the input vector, the corresponding pointers indicate different locations in memory.
 4. The method of claim 3, wherein each location in the memory is a location where program code for a corresponding function begins.
 5. The method of claim 1, wherein the identifier comprises a numeric value representative of the closest preceding element that contains the different value.
 6. The method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: for each element of the result vector for which a corresponding element of the predicate vector is not active, setting the element in the result vector equal to zero.
 7. The method of claim 1, wherein an element of the predicate vector is active when the element contains a predetermined value.
 8. A processor that generates a result vector, comprising: the processor; wherein the processor is configured to: receive an input vector and a predicate vector, each including N elements; and generate the result vector, wherein generating the result vector comprises, for each element in a set of elements in the input vector for which a corresponding element of the predicate vector is active, determining if at least one of the elements in the set of elements precedes the element in the input vector and contains a different value than the element in the input vector; and if so, writing an identifier for a closest preceding active element that contains the different value into a corresponding element of a result vector; and if not, writing a zero in the corresponding element of the result vector.
 9. The processor of claim 8, wherein, when determining if at least one of the elements in the set of elements precedes the element in the input vector and contains a different value than the element in the input vector, the processor is configured to make the determination for only a closest preceding element from the set of elements.
 10. The processor of claim 8, wherein the elements of the input vector contain pointers to locations in memory, and when an element that precedes the element in the input vector contains a different value than the element in the input vector, the corresponding pointers indicate different locations in memory.
 11. The processor of claim 10, wherein each location in the memory is a location where program code for a corresponding function begins.
 12. The processor of claim 8, wherein the identifier comprises a numeric value representative of the closest preceding element that contains the different value.
 13. The processor of claim 8, wherein, for each element of the result vector for which a corresponding element of the predicate vector is not active, the processor is configured to set the element in the result vector equal to zero.
 14. The processor of claim 8, wherein an element of the predicate vector is active when the element contains a predetermined value.
 15. A computer system that generates a result vector, comprising: the processor; a memory coupled to the processor, wherein the memory stores instructions and data for the processor; wherein the processor is configured to: receive an input vector and a predicate vector, each including N elements; and generate the result vector, wherein generating the result vector comprises, for each element in a set of elements in the input vector for which a corresponding element of the predicate vector is active, determining if at least one of the elements in the set of elements precedes the element in the input vector and contains a different value than the element in the input vector; and if so, writing an identifier for a closest preceding active element that contains the different value into a corresponding element of a result vector; and if not, writing a zero in the corresponding element of the result vector.
 16. The computer system of claim 15, wherein, when determining if at least one of the elements in the set of elements precedes the element in the input vector and contains a different value than the element in the input vector, the processor is configured to make the determination for only a closest preceding element from the set of elements.
 17. The computer system of claim 15, wherein the elements of the input vector contain pointers to locations in memory, and when an element that precedes the element in the input vector contains a different value than the element in the input vector, the corresponding pointers indicate different locations in memory.
 18. The computer system of claim 17, wherein each location in the memory is a location where program code for a corresponding function begins.
 19. The computer system of claim 15, wherein the identifier comprises a numeric value representative of the closest preceding element that contains the different value.
 20. The computer system of claim 15, wherein, for each element of the result vector for which a corresponding element of the predicate vector is not active, the processor is configured to set the element in the result vector equal to zero.
 21. The computer system of claim 15, wherein an element of the predicate vector is active when the element contains a predetermined value. 